Re: XML Encoding of XPath: Examples

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> 
> And it is the higher-level abstractions which the schema uses to model
> things that give much of the value of language.  Schematron has no notion of
> type. XML Schemas has no equivalent to Schematron's pattern. 

Sure, but I find that a common syntax does help looking at the
similarities and differences of the existing rule based and pattern
based languages.

I agree that the correspondence is probably one way (a pattern may be
written as a rule but a rule cannot always be written as a pattern).

On the other hand, rule that can be expressed as patterns use to be
simpler to write and understand as patterns than as rules.

I strongly believe, then, that a pattern based language allowing to
define additional local rules would be a good compromise.

And that a common syntax does help top get the picture...

Eric
-- 
Rendez-vous à Paris pour net2001.
                         http://www.mynet2001.net/pgmonline2001/it2.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------